Reply to comment

I agree that any one tactic which undermines another tactic with a similar aims can be problematic and "we" need to have conversations and make commitments to one another about the impact one set of actions might have on another. But your posting is uncritical and lack the complexity to do such a discussion justice and in fact undermines and puts at risk a number of people in a very real way, too.

To be coherent with what you are saying , you would have to agree that there may be tactics which are often named as non-violent, that can be equally disruptive. I have all-too-often seen people undermine and in fact put at risk tactics that i believed were sound (one mild example was as a group of pagans washing off graffiti done by youth at a demo)

It's imperative to continue the discussions that occurred around the turn of the century, but this needs to be done through internal discussion and debate, rather than a denunciation of tactics in a public forum, in which the context and complexities (and indeed other viewpoints) get lost.... See More... See More

For one example, you invoke the participation of some first nations in the torch ceremony, without mentioning the strong and consistent indigenous resistance in BC and throughout turtle island, including the fact that the torch route was changed to avoid protests by Six Nations were the torch to cross into their territory. You reference to the support of some first nations to the torch ceremonies invisibilizes the strong pockets of resistance to the Olympic games within first nation communities.

More to the point of your article however, you paint a particular singular dimension to the complex issue you are writing about in terms of "black bloc tactics"

There are definitely agent provocateurs and may be people who believe, as you say, that provoking police is exposing the violence of the state. I have not heard that argued myself, but perhaps some people feel that. You are, however, leaving out a whole range of views and opinions on the subject, and leaving anyone who reads this article with the impression that what has been happening is one of 2 things.

I must say that i am not invloved in the organizing, nor am i on the streets in Vancouver. I don't know who is engaging in what sorts of actions, and have no idea of the motivations or impacts of any specific actions, beyond what people individually claim. What i have to say is not about the protests in Vancouver at all. It is about the questions you raise in general.

I think it is a problem to consider property damage violence. First of all, I would understand violnece as being enacted against someone/thing that can experience pain or trauma. Metaphysics aside, i think there is a huge difference between throwing a rock through a window, and punching a person in the face.

In fact, i would go further to say that inaction in this world of any sort is defacto violence. Standing by and not fighting against the oppression and exploitation of this world is an act of violence. I have often witnessed acts which are later denounced as violence, but are in fact attempts at protecting people in a real and immediate sense,

Also, to be clear, there are times when property damage, or "trashing a place" is framed as a legitimate tactic of economic disruption. In the face or organizations that value profit above all else, the cost of protecting, cleaning up and repairing or replacing property can make a decision unprofitable. Consider a building that kicks out an Israeli embassy because the building management doesn't want to deal with the on-going security needs, or a logging company that can't continue to replace logging equipment which is damaged.

I think the complexity of the issues go far beyond what can be discussed on facebook or in a blog, and those views get distorted thru a public statement such as yours. They are questions and issues that need to space and input and safety of internal communities to discuss and come to deeper understandings. Hopefully, to come to stronger, more coherent ways of fighting together in this world, but at the least, to support and be in solidarity with one another in common struggles.